From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751214AbXCHC5N (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 21:57:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751341AbXCHC5N (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 21:57:13 -0500 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([216.239.33.17]:5738 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751214AbXCHC5L (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Mar 2007 21:57:11 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=beta; d=google.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to: mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding: content-disposition:references; b=HApL7MRchIiMWvwUxqjdzu02g1ahe0gK/LqIIr/C5LIWb6oVRSiC26tw1iPklZ2AD hXj+kQDRcK3hoxB+yAPNw== Message-ID: <6599ad830703071857yf711921ja3440c4276bbe58e@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 18:57:01 -0800 From: "Paul Menage" To: "Sam Vilain" Subject: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 0/2] resource control file system - aka containers on top of nsproxy! Cc: "Srivatsa Vaddagiri" , ckrm-tech@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xemul@sw.ru, dev@sw.ru, pj@sgi.com, "Eric W. Biederman" , winget@google.com, containers@lists.osdl.org, "Serge E. Hallyn" , akpm@linux-foundation.org In-Reply-To: <45EF793C.1000700@vilain.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070301133543.GK15509@in.ibm.com> <20070307205846.GB7010@sergelap.austin.ibm.com> <6599ad830703071320ib687019h34d2e66c4abc3794@mail.gmail.com> <6599ad830703071518y715ecdb2y33752a6e25b5ecdb@mail.gmail.com> <45EF5A62.8000103@vilain.net> <6599ad830703071642n69bbd801n6114fa6f9e60a168@mail.gmail.com> <45EF5E71.7090101@vilain.net> <6599ad830703071658q60466dd8hd18a1eab9bc17535@mail.gmail.com> <45EF793C.1000700@vilain.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 3/7/07, Sam Vilain wrote: > > Sorry, I didn't realise I was talking with somebody qualified enough to > speak on behalf of the Generally Established Principles of Computer Science. I made sure to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namespace http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namespace_%28computer_science%29 when this argument started ... :-) > > This is the classic terminology problem between substance and function. > ie, some things share characteristics but does that mean they are the > same thing? Aren't you arguing my side here? My point is that what I'm trying to add with "containers" (or whatever name we end up using) can't easily be subsumed into the "namespace" concept, and you're arguing that they should go into nsproxy because they share some characteristics. > > Look, I already agreed in the earlier thread that the term "namespace" > was being stretched beyond belief, yet instead of trying to be useful > about this you still insist on calling this sub-system specific stuff > the "container", Uh, no. I'm trying to call a *grouping* of processes a container. > and then go screaming that I am wrong and you are right > on terminology. Actually I asked if you/Eric had better suggestions. Paul